Background

Schachter and Singer developed the two-factor theory of emotion. The two-factor
theory suggests that emotion comes from a combination of a state of arousal and
a cognition that makes best sense of the situation the person is in. For example,
the two-factor theory of emotion argues that when people become aroused they
look for cues as to why they feel the way they do.

Aim
The aim of the study is to test the two-factor theory of emotion.
From the aim three propositions (or hypotheses) were devised:
1. If a person experiences a state of arousal for which they have no immediate
explanation, they will label this state and describe their feelings in terms of the
cognitions available to them at the time.
2. If a person experiences a state of arousal for which they have an appropriate
explanation (e.g. ‘I feel this way because I have just received an injection of
adrenalin’), then they will be unlikely to label their feelings in terms of the
alternative cognitions available.
3. If a person is put in a situation, which in the past could have made them feel
an emotion, they will react emotionally or experience emotions only if they are in a
state of physiological arousal.

Method/Procedure
The participants were 184 male college students, taking classes in introductory
psychology at Minnesota University. 90% of which received two extra points on
their final exam for every hour they served as subjects. The subjects’ health
records were checked to make sure that the adrenalin would not have an adverse
effect.
The method used was a laboratory experiment with independent measures. There
were two independent variables. The information about the adrenalin injection
given to the subjects, and the situation they are put in (euphoria situation or anger
situation).
The first independent variable (information about the adrenalin injection given to
the subjects) was manipulated in the following way
As soon as the participant arrived, he was taken to a private room by the
experimenter and told that the aim of the experiment was ‘to look at the effects of
vitamin injections on visual skills’, and was asked if he would mind having an
injection of ‘Suproxin’ (made up name).
184 out of 195 subjects agreed to the injection. They were given an injection (by a
doctor) of either adrenalin (epinephrine) or a placebo, which was actually a saline
solution, which has no side effects at all. The effects of the adrenalin are very
similar to the effects of arousal of the sympathetic division of the autonomic
nervous system (as in the fight or flight syndrome) - increasing in blood pressure,
heart rate, blood sugar level, respiration rate, and blood flow to the muscles and
brain, with an accompanying decrease in blood flow to the skin. This is often
experienced as palpitations, tremors, flushing and faster breathing. The effects
begin after three minutes and last from ten minutes to an hour.
The subjects were then put in one of four experimental conditions:
1. Adrenalin Ignorant - subjects were given an adrenalin injection and not told of
the effects of the drug.
2. Adrenalin Informed - subjects were given an adrenalin injection and warned of
the ‘side effects’ of the drug (hand shake, heart pounding, dry mouth etc.). The
subjects were therefore prepared for the effects of the adrenalin (although they
thought they were to do with the suproxin).
3. Adrenalin Misinformed - subjects were given an adrenalin injection and told to
expect side effects but were told these would be numb feet and headache. These
subjects would, therefore, not be expecting the effects of the adrenalin.
4. Control Group - Placebo - subjects were given an injection that would have no
effect and were given no instructions of what to expect.

The second independent variable (the situation they are put in - either euphoria
situation or anger situation) was manipulated in the following way.
Immediately after the subject’s injection, the doctor left the room and the
experimenter returned with a stooge. The stooge was introduced as another
subject and the experimenter stated that both had had the Suproxin injection and
that they had to wait for 20 minutes while the Suproxin was absorbed into the
bloodstream, after which they would both be given the same tests of vision.
The participant was placed in either the euphoria situation or anger situation.
The euphoria situation
The waiting room had been deliberately put into a state of mild disarray and as the
experimenter was leaving, he apologetically added that, if they needed any rough
paper, rubber bands or pencils they should help themselves. As soon as the
experimenter left the room the stooge introduced himself again, made a few
icebreaker comments and then began his routine which consisted of playing with
items (paper, rubber bands, pencils, folders and hula hoops) left in the room. The
stooge encouraged the participant to join in while he played with the objects. The
routine was standardised as far as was possible. The stooge never knew which
condition any particular subject was in.
The anger situation
The participants in this situation were placed with a stooge and were asked to
spend the 20 minutes waiting time answering questionnaires. Before looking at
the questionnaires, the stooge told the subject that he thought it unfair to be given
injections, and that they should have been told when they first called.
The five-page questionnaire started innocently enough, but then grew
increasingly personal and insulting (e.g. ‘How many times each week do you have
sexual intercourse?’) The stooge, sitting opposite the subject, paced his own
answers so that at all times they were both working on the same question. At
regular points, the stooge made a series of standardised comments about the
questions, starting off innocently enough, but growing increasingly discontented
and finally he ends in a rage.
This routine again was standardised and the stooge never knew which condition
any particular subject was in.
[The adrenalin misinformed condition was not run in the anger sequence because
it was originally conceived as a control condition, and that its inclusion in the
euphoria sequence would suffice as a means of evaluating any artifactual effects
of the adrenal informed instructions]
Overall, the study ran seven conditions as shown in table below

The conditions in the Schachter and Singer experiment

Euphoria Anger
Informed Informed
Ignorant Ignorant
Misinformed
Placebo Placebo
Measurement
The researchers then made observational measures of emotional response
through a one-way mirror, and also took self-report measures from the
subjects. The self-report questionnaire contained of a number of mock questions
but the crucial ones to measure mood and emotion are shown below in the table.

The self-report rating scale used by Schachter and Singer.

1. How irritated, angry or annoyed would you say you feel at present?
I don’t I feel a I feel quite I feel very I feel
feel at all little a lot irritated extremely
irritated irritated irritated and angry irritated and
or angry and angry and angry angry

2. How good or happy would you say you feel at present?

I don’t I feel a I feel quite I feel very I feel
feel at little a lot happy and extremely
all happy and happy and good happy and
happy or good good good
good

When the subjects had completed the questionnaires, the experimenter

announced that the experiment was over, explained the deception in detail,
answered any questions and swore the subjects to secrecy. Finally, subjects
answered a questionnaire about their experiences, if any, with adrenalin and their
suspicion about the experimental set-up. None knew anything about the
experiment beforehand, but 11 were so extremely suspicious that their data was
automatically discarded.
For the score of self-reported emotion, the anger score was subtracted from the
happiness score.
The scale is a measure of happiness minus anger (i.e. the higher the positive
value, the happier the subject reports himself feeling),

Results/Findings
The subjects who received the injections of adrenalin showed significantly more
sympathetic arousal (as measured by pulse rate and self-ratings on palpitation,
tremor, numbness, itching and headache) in comparison to the placebo subjects.
[However, five subjects showed no relevant symptoms to the adrenalin and thus,
were excluded from the study]
In the euphoria condition the misinformed participants were feeling happier than
all the others. The second happiest group was the ignorant group. This
demonstrates that these participants were more susceptible to the stooge
because they had no explanation of why their bodies felt as they did. The
informed group felt the least happy because they understood why they felt as they
did.
In the anger condition, the ignorant group felt the angriest. The second angriest
group was the placebo group. The least angry group were those who were
informed. Again this shows that participants were more susceptible to the stooge
because they had no explanation of why their body felt as it did.
The behaviour (which was observed through a one way mirror) matched their self-
reports.

Explanation
Schachter and Singer argue that their findings support their two-factor theory of
emotion. The two-factor theory of emotion states that the physiological arousal
in different emotion is entirely the same and we label our arousal according to the
cognitions we have available.
They argue that all three propositions were supported.

Evaluation of Procedure/Method
The main strength of the method used by Schachter and Singer is the amount of
control they had of their procedure. For example they were able to randomly
allocate different participants to the different conditions, they were able to deceive
the participants of the real nature of the experiment and standardise the
procedure as much as possible. They even ensured that the stooge did not know
which condition the participant was in.
However there are many weakness of the method used by Schachter and Singer.
The experiment definitely lacked ecological validity. We do not usually experience
emotions in the way in which Schachter and Singer induced them. We are often
aware of events before the onset of arousal and this gives us information we can
use to interpret out physical cues.
The sample used in the experiment can also be criticised. The sample was all
male college students, taking classes in introductory psychology at Minnesota
University. We could criticise the use of students or males. It could be, for
example that males do not always experience emotions in the same way as
females. The sample is certainly not representative.
The study can also be questioned on ethical grounds. Even though the
participants were given health checks before the experiment began, and were
thoroughly debriefed, they were considerably deceived.
The results were definitely not as impressive as expected. All the participants in
the euphoria and anger situation were not actually angry. If they were angry they
would have got minus scores. It seems that the experimenters were only able to
make participants less happy but not angry.
We can also question the assumption that all participants would react in the same
way to the adrenaline. Adrenalin does not affect everyone in the same way, for
example five of Schachter & Singer’s subjects were excluded from analysis
because they experienced no physiological symptoms.
A further problem with the procedure is that no assessment was made of
subjects’ mood before the injection - presumably, a subject in a better mood to
begin with might respond more positively to a playful stooge.
Finally, perhaps because people wanted to believe the theory, and perhaps
because of the complexity of the experiment, no attempt at replication was made
until 1979 when Marshall and Zimbardo failed to obtain the same results as the
original study.

Evaluation of Explanation

The two-factor theory of emotion has been an influential theory of

emotions. However subsequent work has shown that the relationship is more
complex than the two-factor theory predicts.
For example psychologists now argue that peoples efforts to understand an
unexplained state of arousal is more extensive than a quick examination of cues
in the surrounding environment. When we seek to explain a state of arousal, we
don’t merely use others’ behaviour but call on many other sources of information
as well, particularly our own past history - we search for prior occasions on which
we felt this arousal state to explain its occurrence now.